Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Free Software Foundation (was: Re: Mach, the new standard?)
Message-ID: <6886@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15-Sep-87 22:27:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: eddie.6886
Posted: Tue Sep 15 22:27:56 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Sep-87 01:51:46 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8579@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:2189 comp.unix.wizards:4258 comp.os.misc:179

In article <8579@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>[...]
>To pick a non-GNU example, graphing the size of the ls(1) command versus
>time is an interesting exercise, not to be recommended if you are susceptible
>to nausea and vomiting.  To pick an example that is ready at hand, the Sun
>3.2 ls(1) is four times the size of the V7 ls(1).  It's not four times as
>good; the improvement in functionality might charitably be put at 25%.

However, a more meaningful exercise would be to graph the cost of the
memory used by ls(1) versus time.  This is not recommended, if you are
likely to be nauseated by the failure of Unix developers to take best
advantage of available "resources".

Seriously, rapidly changing conditions are a fact in the computer
industry.  To attempt to use such volitile constraints as a metric
over time doesn't make too much sense.

Jeff Siegal